Good points monstro – I think you just described a male version of “Ginger doing everything Fred did, except backwards and in high heels” The first non-“white male” president will have to outshine our current contenders which, at this moment in time, should not be too difficult.
And as I read the thread I was wondering how long it would take before someone pointed out that female and racial/ethnic minority were not mutually exclusive.
All that being said, I’m thinking it will be female, most likely Hillary.
Either (and both) before an open atheist, I assure you.
But a minority man before any sort of woman, I bet. Particularly a Hispanic man or a light-skinned black man - for some reason I think an Asian man would have a harder time, but I couldn’t tell you really why I have that impression. A Native American man might also have a good chance. But any of those before a woman.
Ah, being literal and using a term in the sense it’s obviously not intended. Bravo.
Here’s the problem. The most recent census numbers I can find (June '03) indicate that there are 118,375,136 white women and 115,821,221 white men in the US. Out of 290,809,777 people, that means 80.5% identify white, so it’s fair to call that group a majority and other racial groups minorities. When you go to race/sex, however, there IS no majority group, so the term minority has no meaning. The largest of those groups is white women,
Problem is that if you define it in terms of race/sex, there IS no majority group. White women would (I’m sure) be the largest group, and they’re 40.7% of the population. They’re a plurality, but not ahead of white men (39.8%) by a significant amount. So no, white men aren’t a minority. And that’s ignoring the obvious fact that a minority doesn’t just mean a small group in this context, it usually also means one that’s underrepresented, which I don’t think anybody would claim.
So when will we get the first gay President?
Presumably only a poor (as opposed to rich) candidate would have less chance…
Incidentally the UK have had a female Prime Minister (plus a Queen, but that’s not electable). I think it came as a surprise, especially to the right wing party she led.
NZ has had two female PMs in a row and we are all still alive
We also have the world’s first transgendered MP and a damn fine job she does.
We also have a Pommy implant MP, with dreadlocks down to his knees that pretty much got into parliment on his “legalise dope” line (Green Party member).
Diversity is a good thing. MMP was the best thing that ever happened to NZ.
I’m not saying he can pass. But on the spectrum of phenotypic whiteness-blackness, he definitely leans towards the pale end. From a distance, he does not stick out as a black man.
Disagree?
He’s a conservative moderate. If he were just moderate, he would not be aligned with the Republican Party.
That said, “conservative” is a relative term. If he’s a Democrat, he will have to be a conservative one. Look at Leiberman. He is counter to the stereotypical image of a God-hatin’, Commie-lovin’, rabble-rousin’ Jew. There are anti-Semites in the Democratic Party (I know one personally) who’d have a big problem if he wasn’t counter.
Jesse Jackson had a lot of support from his party when he threw in his hat back in the 80s, but even if everything else was likable about the guy (and back then, he wasn’t nearly as controversial as he is now), his Civil Rights history made him unpalatable. Rainbow Coalition? You mean red, white, and blue ain’t enough? No, he was too black and too scary.
The reason I believe he’d have to be conservative is because the people who’d have the hardest time voting for a non-white male would be conservative. A moderate won’t be good enough for them, because a moderate is more likely to have a more nuanced way of thinking (we won’t have control over him!.
I know people say they’d vote for Colin easily, but I once read a stunning article (cannot locate it on google, dammit) that basically exposed a disconnect between who voters said they were voting for and who they actually voted for. People will throw their support behind a black candidate because it’s the PC thing to do, but when it’s votin’ time, they change their minds. I think the same would happen if Colin ran (which he will never do).
MMP: Mixed Member Proportional, the system which has elected New Zealand MP’s since 1996. Uses a combination of district seats and a proportional list.
Thank you Governor Quinn for deciphering what I said.
MMP basicly means we are no longer slaves to a two party system (though I vote for one of the two parties). We have two votes. One to elect the MP for our electorate and then one to vote for a party. It has made for some most interesting post election squabbling and negotiating as the two major parties try to find coalition partners, sometimes with less then desirable results.
It has left us free from a red or blue only choice though.
So, are you saying that even though his skin is black, he doesn’t look and act like a “black man”? For that he’d need to be more…urban I guess would be the word? “I’m Colon Powel bitch!”
Have to disagree, there are moderate, and even liberal Republicans. It’s been a while since there was ever talk of him running, and while little was, and is known about his political stances, I seem to remember that what little was known didn’t make him seem very conservative. I felt like while he self identified with the Republican party, which is made up of mostly conservatives, his actual views were more moderate, or even slightly liberal. Kind of like how Bill O’Reilly claims to be a moderate, but his actual views are more conservative than not.
But nobody wanted Leiberman because they said he just Bush-Lite.
Maybe he could have won if he wouldn’t have pissed off all of the Hymies in Hymietown.
Saying his blackness is what cost him is oversimplifying things. Sure, there are bigots who wouldn’t vote for him because he’s black, but there are plenty of other reasons why people don’t vote for him when he runs. Putting race aside, I think many people see him too liberal and radical in general.
I almost made a sarcastic statement, but then realized that you may not have been calling all Republicans racists. At least I hope that’s the case.
Uhm, for one thing, Powel never ran, so people who said they’d vote for him, and then actually voted for someone else aren’t liars or racists.
Also, again, you seem to be oversimplifying things by contributing racism to people not voting for the minority candidate. Someone might say they’d vote for Al Sharpton, but know that, in reality, he doesn’t have a snow balls chance in hell of winning, thus, they’ll vote for a candidate who actually stands a chance, because they don’t want to throw their vote away. Does this make those voters disengenuos and liars, absolutely. Does it make them racist? Some probably are, and some probably aren’t.
Honestly, I’d expect a religious gay candidate to be successful before an out atheist.
But as for a poor candidate, obviously the game has changed, but independently wealthy presidential candidates are something of a newer phenomenon. Plenty of candidates in the past were not super-wealthy before their election (or after it, for that matter, although it does come with room and board). Truman sold suits, Lincoln’s famous for coming from a poor background, etc, etc, etc. Our first presidents were landed elite, and our most recent ones, but I think the ones in the middle were much more diverse economically speaking.
What about even being single? Could or would that ever be part of the decision making process? Hmmm.
In my mind, I would first think we’d see someone like Colin Powell… considered more conservative, well-spoken and highly educated, with a service record (IIRC) to boot. Plus, he hasn’t had any skeletons discovered in his closets (that I know of) and is fiercely portrayed as a family man.
Next, I could see more of the same, with variations being different religious affiliations than the norm (like Kennedy being Catholic – but no atheists) and possibly more widening forms of minority status. Depending on their stances on hot button issues, what demographics over that they appeal to most and how big the rest is put off if they disagree.
Later, I could see a woman, but I’m not so sure it would be Hilary. I’m still thinking more along Republican lines before anything else. I’m 36 and hope to see it in my lifetime.
Lastly, might be a gay president. Much would have to change, including all the backlash to the current climate and anti-discrimination laws enacted/enforced, as well as them receiving the same liberties as the rest of us. (Although I won’t get into the whole ‘women make less than men on average’ argument.)
As far as what happens this November, I’m not in the least optimistic. I’m afraid we’ll have four more years of Bush and then sufficiently enough to swing the pendulum back in the opposite direction.
All that being said, I’m thinking it will be female, most likely Hillary.